10 Mar
2025
10 Mar
'25
3:27 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:12 AM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:52:20AM -0400, Clem Cole
wrote:
Oh goodness; I hope we can all agree that no one was suggesting that!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:41???AM Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
Exactly. It's not that Clem and I are stupid, we aren't. On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 03:12:06AM -0600,
arnold(a)skeeve.com wrote:
Me too.
I think, as in all things, "always use
parentheses" can be carried
too far. I find
if (a == b && c == d)
perfectly reasonable, but
if ((a == b) && (c == d))
to be just silly.
Color me silly then. My eyes parse the "silly" form faster.
Exactly.
And I was the boss so my eyes won. Over time,
everyone at my shop came
to agree with me.
One mans silly is another mans faster reading.
The problem is that in the first form, you have to slow down to ensure you
have the order correctly, Maybe it's my dyslexia speaking, but the
"extra"
parens make it clear without having to slow down. [snip] creates pointless work for other people.
Along these lines, I can't stand when people write, `if (!strcmp(a,
b)) { /* strings are equal */ }`
While true, I find the negation particularly annoying in this context,
and prefer either `if (strcmp(a, b) == 0) { ... }` or writing a small
`streq()` function that returns boolean true/false.
- Dan C.